Leaderboard

It has been happening a lot and that is the exact approach we have been taking - just throw all the entities into the Plan, check the CG box and change the adopting ER/main entity to be the most recent one. It requires participation/joinder agreement for other/old entities.

Do you use a pre-approved plan doc? Can you ask that provider? I think most have some kind of amendment system to generate a short amendment to change the Plan Sponsor. Is the EIN changing? If yes, there is a place to report the sponsorship change on the 5500. It might also be easier to just amend the Plan to have the FL LLC as an adopting employer (that seem a clear CG), then end the participation of the NY LLC when it dissolves and have the FL LLC take over as lead adopter.

So long as the contributions are after-tax and the plan language allows them, they are permitted. According to the IRS, in a defined benefit plan: Trying to make them pre-tax would violate the rules regarding CODAs. However, a CODA is defined in Code section 401(k) as an arrangement: In this case, the employee is not electing to have the employer make contributions; the employee is electing to make contributions themselves.

Can an -11g amendment only favor HCEs as this would? But anyway, the amendment itself will and should detail which specific employees get to accrue which specific additional benefits, however the fix is going to play out.

Yeah I think it's borderline and could reasonably be interpreted as a change in residence each time depending on the specific facts and circumstances. Here's my thoughts I've posted on this issue: https://www.newfront.com/blog/spouse-relocates-outside-u-s-moves-u-s-2 Spouse Moves Into Country In this example, the employee’s spouse is moving into the country from an area where the plan does not provide full coverage. The employee’s spouse therefore will have a change in residence affecting eligibility for the plan. This means that the employee may change his or her election to cover the spouse upon the spouse’s change in residence to the U.S. Spouse Moves Out of Country In this example, the employee’s spouse is moving out of the country to an area where the plan does not provide full coverage. The employee’s spouse therefore will have a change in residence affecting eligibility for the plan. This means that the employee may change his or her election to revoke coverage for the spouse upon the spouse’s change in residence outside the U.S. What is a Change in Residence? There’s no formal definition or exact timeframe to determine “residence” that applies here. The analysis is based on all facts and circumstances. In other words, if the spouse is going somewhere on vacation, there’s no permitted election change event. If the spouse is changing residence for some period to the foreign country, then relocating to reside back in the U.S., there will be permitted election change event upon each event. This isn’t very precise, but it’s also generally not an issue in practice. The employee will certify to the change in residence in most cases, and there is no reason for the employer to question that certification unless the employer suspects fraud. Fraud would likely only be an issue if the employer had reason to believe that the dropping/re-enrolling request was really a based on the spouse’s short vacation.

If (and only if) the move to another country results in the loss of eligibility for coverage, then I would permit an election change each time the move occurs. I don't think there is any rule regarding a time frame for such moves or whether such move has to be "permanent."

An ADP test and possibly ACP is required because those with the 1 year wait are not able to get the Safe Harbor contribution. Therefore, it's not fully a Safe Harbor plan for all employees. It's only a Safe Harbor plan for those that meet the eligibility requirements to receive the Safe Harbor. I like to try to keep my Safe Harbor plans to single eligibility expressly for this reason. In my opinion the dual eligibility design ruins the efficiency of a Safe Harbor plan.. especially the plan that only does deferrals and safe harbor contributions. I don't want to work that hard inside a Safe Harbor plan. And then, with dual eligibility safe harbor, I have to concern myself with Top heavy, did a KEY employee come into the plan and defer a percentage that will require refunds. To some extent, I am thinking harder about Safe Harbor plans than I am with a non-safe harbor plan. We all have to be really sharp on the Safe Harbor plans. There are some pitfalls that we don't want to fall into.

It's not truly disaggregation, where you would treat it as two separate plans as you might be used to with 410(b) and 401(a)(4). Rather, what the new law says is that employees who have not met age 21/1 year of service can be disregarded when determining if a DC plan has satisfied the top heavy minimum. So it doesn't matter if there are any otherwise excludable key employees, you just ignore all of the under 21/under 1 year employees when determining who is entitled to a top heavy minimum. Where it gets weird is with the safe harbor match. The IRS ruled (in rev. rul. 2004-13) that a plan which different eligibility for deferrals and safe harbor does not consist "solely" of deferrals and match meeting the safe harbor requirements, which is the rule to be treated as not top heavy under IRC 416(g)(4)(H). That clause wasn't affected by the new law. So presumably a plan with different eligibility for deferrals and match is still treated as top heavy, and subject to the top heavy minimum. The fact that they don't have to give the top heavy minimum to otherwise excludable employees doesn't change this, it just means that employees who are not otherwise excludable (over 21/1 year of service) will have to get the top heavy minimum. The top heavy minimum for these people could be satisfied by their safe harbor match contribution, or if they don't get any safe harbor (or enough safe harbor, because they didn't defer enough or not at all), then by an additional employer contribution.